[jillybean]

---

MPs. 1nt 12-14 (sometimes 11)

[smerriman]

Is there an alternative to 4♠ (via 4♥, assuming you play a direct 4♠ as something else)?

[akwoo]

If I may piggyback onto this... Assume you play that 4♠ is to play AND that 4♦ is a transfer to spades. Which is better?

[mycroft]

I was just thinking that (because I do play that). I like 4♠ for three reasons:

• LHO doesn't get to double 4♦ or bid 4♥;
  
• if we do play it, it's harder for defenders to count their partner's hand; and
  
• sure, any tenace partner has is being led through, but do I care? And there's a good chance my ♣Kx is worth protecting.

Next question - assuming they bid, how high are you going?

Other question - how much time do you get to think about all these options before they call the TD and say that your hesitation talked them out of bidding?

[pilowsky]

mycroft, on 2021-March-13, 16:24, said:

Other question - how much time do you get to think about all these options before they call the TD and say that your hesitation talked them out of bidding?

This is an important question for me.
I have played in Beginners sections, where people usually never complain about the time (except the Directors who want the game to move along because they have other things to do.
I have played in intermediate sections where people complain about everything all the time. Their intent is apparently to distract and intimidate. Most of the time, their attempts at intimidation are so funny that that in itself is the most distracting part.
I have kibitzed Advanced players. They seem to take as much time as they want.

Could you outline the non-grievance causing time zones for the people that are new to the game?
I watched Bobby Fischer solve a little puzzle on the Carson show last night. (http://bit.ly/FischerCarson). It took him 17 seconds. He was pretty good at puzzles.
He used to take a little longer to make his moves at the Chessboard when things were interesting.
Fischer never played Bridge, to my knowledge, probably too distracted by hesitating opponents.

Interesting! I just discovered that Fischer invented "Fischer random chess". This involves shuffling the pieces on the back row before the start (subject to certain limits).
His aim was to level the playing field by getting rid of opening theory by allowing for 960 opening positions. Which would almost destroy opening theory.

This post has been edited by pilowsky: 2021-March-13, 19:10

[sfi]

mycroft, on 2021-March-13, 16:24, said:

Other question - how much time do you get to think about all these options before they call the TD and say that your hesitation talked them out of bidding?

This question is addressed in Law 73D. In summary, it states:

• It is desirable for a player to maintain steady tempo, and players should be particularly careful in situations where a variation in tempo may benefit their side.
  
• Unintentional variations in tempo are not an infraction.
  
• Inferences arising from a variation in tempo are only authorised to the opponents, and they make those inferences at their own risk.

Law 73E starts by saying that you can't attempt to deceive through tempo. It then goes on to say that the director has to determine whether:

• the player has a demonstrable bridge reason for their hesitation
  
• the player could have known the hesitation could work to their benefit

If (and only if) the answer to the first is no and the second is yes then an adjustment would be considered.

The obvious example is in play, when declarer leads towards a KJ in dummy. If LHO hesitates, declarer is entitled to assume LHO has the ace rather than the queen. Or in bidding, if South starts with 3H and West hesitates before passing, N-S (but not East) are entitled to assume West was contemplating some sort of action. If West then shows up with a balanced 6-count and North is talked out of bidding game, then the director should consider adjusting. However, if West had a hand that might have overcalled 4H but eventually chose not to, and North took the wrong inference from the hesitation, then there is no case for adjustment.

In short, if you have a bridge reason to think then you can take all the time you need. The opponents may be unhappy about it, but that's not really your problem. If you don't, but are thinking about where to go for dinner (or away from the computer in an online game), then the director will look at adjusting. If you actually hesitate with the intent to deceive, additional procedural penalties would be appropriate.

[gszes]

Opposite 12 - 14 the opps might very easily (read probably) have a game and rarely a slam. Our side might not be able to make even 1s but might make 6
xx KQJx KQJ xxxx (spades 30) OR Axx xxxx Axx AQxx (spades 11). Since there is no rational reason to assume anything about opener's hand the fact that the opps probably have a game means our best bet is to take away as much bidding space as possible. Getting up to 4s as quickly as the partnerships will allow seems to be the best bet. It is like an insurance bid, it might pay off big time (making 4) but going down a few not vulnerable will rarely lose all of the matchpoints. At unfavorable even going down 2 might end up being a zero so maybe offering a fake invite 1n 2h 2s 3s might be enough to win a ton of MP with less risk. Just don't be shocked if the field is in 4s making or the opps find and bid successfully to the 5 level by going slow.

[mycroft]

That's what the director will have to do when called to the table, certainly. My guess is that determining whether to take the low route (pass or 2-level, perhaps intending to walk the dog), transfer, or bid to play is in fact a demonstrable bridge problem, and while it could show "4 or more", it could also show "4 or less". But to polling we go.

My question was, how long will we be able to take without the director being called at the end of the hand, or when dummy comes down, because "he made us think he was thinking of more than 4, and that kept us away from our making game/slam/sacrifice/double (as appropriate)"?

[jillybean]

---

Here's the full hand. Surprisingly, it was played in a number of different contracts.

2♠X, 3♠, 4♠, 5♥W

[sfi]

mycroft, on 2021-March-13, 23:34, said:

My question was, how long will we be able to take without the director being called at the end of the hand, or when dummy comes down, because "he made us think he was thinking of more than 4, and that kept us away from our making game/slam/sacrifice/double (as appropriate)"?

That depends on your opponents. I know some who will call after a two-second hesitation and others who will never call. But calling the director really should not be something to be stressed about. All it means is the person wants to ensure correct procedure is followed.

Personally, I will only call a director during the hand if there was a hesitation that I think suggested something and the opponent took that action. The length of the hesitation doesn't really come in to play if it was noticeable. And if the opponents agree there was a hesitation I am unlikely to call then. At the end of the hand I am better placed to assess whether there is something I should bring to the director's attention. From memory this probably happens once every other 3-4 day tournament. Far more common in my experience is for the opponent to preemptively acknowledge the hesitation and suggest we call the director, but that's definitely not true in other countries.

Finally, I would have no idea what inference to take if South hesitates before bidding 4S. And I'd be very surprised if it would lead to any adjustment - there are just too many possibilities for any one to demonstrably suggested.